Financial innovation is hot. Too hot perhaps, as some people think it helped sink the global economy in 2008. But bankers are stumped when it comes to getting government out of housing.

Here's something you'll rarely see cited as a problem: The U.S. has too little financial innovation. The creativity of bankers and traders is one thing that enables them to make so much money. They think up fancy solutions to financial problems. Sometimes these involve complicated new securities designed by a couple of math Ph.Ds and may be well-understood by only a handful of people.

Financial innovation was a big factor in the international credit meltdown in 2008. We thought we had eliminated risk with clever financial instruments. We were wrong.

But today, the U.S. economy suffers from another failure of Wall Street innovation. The U.S. financial industry can't seem to figure out how to limit the government's role in the mortgage market.

Wall Street: The Silicon Valley of Financial Innovation

For starters, it isn't hard to understand why the U.S. has seen so much financial innovation over the past decade: it has paid very, very well. Few jobs out there can offer big six- and seven-figure paychecks to people who are very good at math and don't want to take the risk associated with entrepreneurship. The incentives for financial innovation are clear enough, so it's no wonder that some of the best mathematical minds made their way to Wall Street.

Some prime examples of innovation can be found in the asset-backed securities market. Back when mortgage-backed securities were invented a couple of decades ago, they were a pretty slick idea. They provided banks with more funding for mortgages and investors with bonds structured to their liking. Similar securities were developed for other consumer products like auto loans and credit cards. Even some interesting esoteric asset-backed securities were created, which were backed by weird assets like lottery winning payment streams or periodic lawsuit settlement payments.

The derivatives market has also been fertile ground for financial innovation. Credit-default swaps make it easy for investors to hedge against the risk of the bonds they own. Their price also provides a good indication of how risky the market considers a bond's risk to be. Lots of custom derivatives have also been created, which are tailored to a client's particular risk exposure. One of the more infamous derivatives is the synthetic collateralized debt obligation, which is a bond that can reference bonds that are created out of other bonds or loans.

And of course, innovative mortgage products played a part in the U.S. housing bubble. Option-adjustable rate mortgages allowed for very low initial payments that reset to subsequent higher payments in time. Some of those options included an interest-only period. Another option was negative amortization, where mortgages actually grew in size at first and required much bigger payments in future years.

Of course, some of these innovations turned out to be more dangerous than anticipated. Some of those derivatives, for example, didn't diversify risk as well as their creators had believed they would. Some securities actually managed to disguise risk. And some wacky mortgage products led to foreclosures when borrowers couldn't afford them after payments reset.

So if anything, the U.S. could be accused of too much financial innovation. Almost no one ever argues that it doesn't have enough.

Is Housing Finance Just Too Hard?

And oddly, this innovation breaks down as soon as it comes to housing finance. If you ask Wall Street how to get the government out of the mortgage market, it collectively throws up its hands and asserts it impossible. The government's guarantee is totally necessary -- the market can't function without it, assert bankers, traders, and investors. Without the government, down payments would have to climb to 30% of a home's value, some say. The beloved 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage could disappear, others warn.

Why can't Wall Street innovate its way out of this problem? This is a trick question: investors have no desire to innovate their way out of this problem. After all, they don't need to. Right now, the government stands behind more than 90% of new mortgage originations. For investors, this creates a great situation. This way, they don't have to worry about any default risk. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Well obviously, something is broken. This week, Fannie Mae announced that it needed another $7.8 billion from taxpayers. It and its brother Freddie Mac have amassed a bailout of more than $150 billion since the housing bubble burst. As long as the government casually stands behind the entire mortgage market, the moral hazard to create risky loans can return. The only sure way to control this risk is for someone to directly lose money if bad loans are made. During the housing bubble, investors were lulled into believing that the mortgage risk they took on was low thanks to the AAA-ratings that mortgage bonds were provided by the credit rating agencies. Only the government has deep enough pockets to protect them.

Innovation Can Provide Solutions

But surely these brilliant financial innovators could think up new solutions if the government refused to take on mortgage risk. The market wouldn't simply shrug and stop providing mortgages. There will always be a demand for home ownership and the loans that make it possible. There will also always be a supply of investors who are interested in taking on a modest amount of risk for a return slightly better than they would get from government securities. Thus, private housing finance should be possible.

There are a couple of different broad ways housing finance reform can be achieved. Most would address the problems recently encountered during the housing bubble.

The mortgage business is complicated. It is no longer as easy as a bank wanting to make a loan and a borrower wanting a loan. These days, banks don't create mortgages based on the deposits they've got: most mortgages are funded through a secondary market. That means lenders will sell the mortgages they originate to somebody else. Sometimes this is an investor. Other times the government buys them up. Lenders will even sometimes sell their loans to another bank.

At this time, the secondary market is almost entirely controlled by the U.S. government. Since the market froze in 2007, private investors haven't been interested in mortgages without a government guarantee. But this could change if the government forced certain reforms on the market. Here are three potential reforms that have been proposed and could help.

Better Information for Investors

For the private secondary market to take on mortgage risk again, securitization must return. Although it got a bad name during the financial crisis, it's a perfectly legitimate funding mechanism. The problems during the financial crisis were two-fold: ratings relied on ridiculous assumptions and not enough information was provided to investors to assess the mortgages themselves. This situation, however, could be remedied fairly easily. A new infrastructure could be created where investors could obtain mortgage data quickly when deciding whether or not to buy a mortgage-backed security. This might slow down issuance slightly, but the delay would be worth the reward of less government in the market.

Standardized Mortgages

Investors would also have an easier time taking on real estate risk if mortgages were more standardized. During the housing bubble, credit criteria became so muddled that some mortgages didn't rely on any documentation of borrower characteristics. Such sloppily originated mortgages should be forbidden. Investors can become comfortable with standardized mortgages that are underwritten with specific criteria satisfied.

Covered Bonds

If some pending legislation is passed in Congress, another helpful reform will be in place for the secondary market: covered bonds will become easier to issue in the U.S. Although Europe has relied on these mortgage funding tools for a century, current law makes issuing covered bonds difficult in the U.S. Briefly, these bonds are sort of a hybrid between mortgage-backed securities and unsecured bank debt. Basically, they're bank debt secured directly by mortgages, but technically paid by banks. That makes them safer than either and more appealing to nervous investors. For a better explanation, check out this post.

New Mortgage Products

Developing innovative new mortgage products could also help investors to find mortgage financing more attractive. Here are a couple of possibilities.

The "DJI Mortgage"

Last year, I suggested that banks think about creating a mortgage where the interest rate declines over time. I called it the "Declining Jackhammer Interest Mortgage." The purpose here is twofold. First, a higher interest rate will compensate the lender for the higher risk associated with the mortgage when the borrower's equity is smaller. Over time, however, as the interest rate declines, the borrower will benefit from lower payments and also have less incentive to refinance the loan. So the lender's interest rate risk is also reduced.

The Mana Loan

Another proposal I learned about recently is called the "Mana Loan." This innovative idea would allow a borrower to have no down payment or to put down as much as they like. The lender would then overfund the mortgage by lending the borrower an additional 20% on top of the normal mortgage. That overfunding would be used to pay for an annuity as well as a high cash-value designed life insurance policy, providing the homeowner a quicker buildup of equity over time and giving both the lender and the homeowner a financial safety net, in case they need it. This will appeal to lenders because it will quickly develop a thick cushion for losses if default occurs.

Borrowers also benefit from the additional savings component provided by the cash value in the life insurance policy. The homeowner now has the beginnings of a tax-advantaged retirement plan, building college funds, and/or rainy day savings. A number of banks are interested in the product, but investors remain hesitant to consider mortgages, especially new products, not guaranteed by the government.

The Adjustable-Rate Mortgage

Okay, so you've heard of this one before. Adjustable-rate mortgages got a bad name after the housing bubble. But research shows that they actually performed better than fixed rate mortgages when the bubble popped. This might be partially because interest rates were cut very low when the crisis hit, which made paying adjustable-rate mortgages easier. But in general, if these loans are well-structured and intelligently originated, then they should be appealing to borrowers as well. The trick is for a borrower to obtain a mortgage of a size they can afford, no matter how sharply interest rates rise. In other words, the mindset for obtaining an ARM needs to be the opposite of what it was during the bubble.

Only the Government Can Allow Housing Finance Innovation to Flourish

So really, innovation is possible in housing finance. Investors can eventually become comfortable with mortgage risk again. But as long as the government is taking that risk on instead, investors and bankers have no reason to change the status quo: they're obtaining a healthy return and letting taxpayers shoulder most of the risk. The government must force the financial industry to innovate.

About the Author

Daniel Indiviglio was an associate editor at The Atlantic from 2009 through 2011. He is now the Washington, D.C.-based columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He is also a 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow through the Phillips Foundation.

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

“All the world has failed us,” a resident of the Syrian city of Aleppo told the BBC this week, via a WhatsApp audio message. “The city is dying. Rapidly by bombardment, and slowly by hunger and fear of the advance of the Assad regime.”

In recent weeks, the Syrian military, backed by Russian air power and Iran-affiliated militias, has swiftly retaken most of eastern Aleppo, the last major urban stronghold of rebel forces in Syria. Tens of thousands of besieged civilians are struggling to survive and escape the fighting, amid talk of a rebel retreat. One of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth, the city of the Silk Road and the Great Mosque, of muwashshah and kibbeh with quince, of the White Helmets and Omran Daqneesh, is poised to fall to Bashar al-Assad and his benefactors in Moscow and Tehran, after a savage four-year stalemate. Syria’s president, who has overseen a war that has left hundreds of thousands of his compatriots dead, will inherit a city robbed of its human potential and reduced to rubble.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Even in big cities like Tokyo, small children take the subway and run errands by themselves. The reason has a lot to do with group dynamics.

It’s a common sight on Japanese mass transit: Children troop through train cars, singly or in small groups, looking for seats.

They wear knee socks, polished patent-leather shoes, and plaid jumpers, with wide-brimmed hats fastened under the chin and train passes pinned to their backpacks. The kids are as young as 6 or 7, on their way to and from school, and there is nary a guardian in sight.

A popular television show called Hajimete no Otsukai, or My First Errand, features children as young as two or three being sent out to do a task for their family. As they tentatively make their way to the greengrocer or bakery, their progress is secretly filmed by a camera crew. The show has been running for more than 25 years.